On 5/10/07, Jouni Malinen <jkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 01:27:56PM +0200, Jiri Benc wrote: > A driver is not supposed to set rate control. Under no circumstances. > If you know about a bug in default rate control algorithm, fix it and > send a patch. Otherwise, fix your driver. I don't think I would fully agree with this. Sure, the default rate control algorithm should work with all drivers, but it is quite possible that some rate control algorithms do not work with all drivers and some combinations are much better than the "default algorithm". In other words, I think there is benefit in drivers being able to "suggest" a rate control algorithm to be used and there is not much point having to force the user space to do this selection for the initial rate control algorithm. Sure, this should still be something that can be changed from user space, but the defaults selection could as well be the best available combination.
Just was about to write the same.
Some hardware designs provide extra functionality that can be used to improve rate control algorithm and as such, they may benefit greatly from a specific rate control implementation. Because of this, there was originally possibility for allowing the rate control algorithms to know the driver name and use this to select whether to allow the algorithm to be used with the driver. The request here was for a bit different way of doing this, but anyway, I see value in this whichever way it would be implemented.
In addition the interface that passes the rate scale information (struct ieee80211_tx_status) from driver to rate scale algorithm is not general enough to support hw specific data. Tomas - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
